This is the most important issue in the world today and always will be reguardless of you gang affiliation, race ,or age when the world ends this will be the question that determines the fate of your soul. what are your thoughts? and what are your answers? Do you really understand what and who God is, what Jesus is to God, or what is Jesus to the World? Do you understand the bible and how it is the word of God and not man? Do you understand why things are the way they or are you just trying to find a reason not to believe?

Gang life is one step toward having faith wether you see it or not gangs are religions( especially if your gang has knowledge) I write this to tell you wether your root is Christian islam Jewish Blood Crip Folk or just worldly relgion is vainity but faith is key

Thank God for all things through Jesus Christ the Lord of Lords and King of Kings

To whom it is concerned...Jesus CLEARLY stated Himself as God, through out the Gospels, and by the Apostle Paul --just 30 or so years after Mark (the earliest Gospel) was written. We also have the bountiful testimony of the Early Church fathers, who were directly linked to the first Apostles, who in the first century acknowledged Jesus as God....it is inescapable, and I could provide numerous credible sources out side the Bible it self, dating back to the first century, if any of you are interested.coolwheto
Newbie

believing in jesus and believing he existed as a man are two seperate things.

For most people, it wouldn't be a stretch to accept the latter were true; a charismatic preacher whole garnered followers. For some it is difficult to believe in his teachings or more so his role in christianity.

People who don't believe usually dismiss any biblical text as proof his existence, regardless of it's origin (jewish, christian, etc). Although I don't doubt people have corrupted and misused the message of religion through the years, the fact people so easily reject documents that focus on him is frustrating in the whole debate.

But aside from biblical texts, there are other sources that come up like the dead sea scrolls. I took a world religions class and my professor broke it down for me, he said there were several bishops and popes from that era that documented or referenced Jesus, I'm talking about people who lived during Jesus' time. The one that I remember was Pope Clement. I remember he told me about some non-religious texts that mentioned a man named Jesus who had disciples being crucified. He said these are all debatable as evidence of his existence

Issue is, unless you were a patriarch, it was unlikely you would be remembered thousands of years ago. Jesus isn't the only person in history to incite controversy and argument in regards to his existence or life. There's plenty of instances of "maybe" and "possibly" involving other historical figures.

I guess until we develop time travel we won't have the youtube video to prove it huh?

MCD wrote:believing in jesus and believing he existed as a man are two seperate things.

For most people, it wouldn't be a stretch to accept the latter were true; a charismatic preacher whole garnered followers. For some it is difficult to believe in his teachings or more so his role in christianity.

People who don't believe usually dismiss any biblical text as proof his existence, regardless of it's origin (jewish, christian, etc). Although I don't doubt people have corrupted and misused the message of religion through the years, the fact people so easily reject documents that focus on him is frustrating in the whole debate.

But aside from biblical texts, there are other sources that come up like the dead sea scrolls. I took a world religions class and my professor broke it down for me, he said there were several bishops and popes from that era that documented or referenced Jesus, I'm talking about people who lived during Jesus' time. The one that I remember was Pope Clement. I remember he told me about some non-religious texts that mentioned a man named Jesus who had disciples being crucified. He said these are all debatable as evidence of his existence

Issue is, unless you were a patriarch, it was unlikely you would be remembered thousands of years ago. Jesus isn't the only person in history to incite controversy and argument in regards to his existence or life. There's plenty of instances of "maybe" and "possibly" involving other historical figures.

I guess until we develop time travel we won't have the youtube video to prove it huh?

Pope Clement is some 60 to 80 years after Jesus' time.

The Dead Sea Scrolls date from 150 CE to 70 CE , they are during his time but some texts and manuscripts could of been written after Jesus of Nazereth' time.

But your right there are many historical figures that people doubt existed,one is the likes of Homer and even Shakespare.

Didn't c him,sorry.so i can't tell if he existed or not,but the main purpose for me is the IDEA,that he sacrificed himself for all humankind,as i understand he was avatar of LOVE..then think whatever u want to think about him or his existance

I'm not a scholar but I believe they mention along the lines of a person named Jesus who was crucified around the same time as is mentioned in biblical texts. It lists other details as well. The main controversy is they cannot 100% confirm it's the Jesus from the bible, but in most non-religious cases that probably would be seen as sufficient or plausible evidence to assume he existed.

Also the other guy is right about Pople Clement, though it wouldn't be unrealistic at all to assume he learned of Jesus through an elder since he was just 1 generation younger. He was after all a person who has influence among people. I forget what the technical term is but history has been passed on by word of mouth for years, since written evidence didn't always exist, and some of that knowledge has made its way to textbooks.

Apparently there's many sections of the scrolls that could allude to Jesus and are still the subject of debate, and there are many different scrolls that were scattered around and some information may have been added shortly after they were hidden.

But if you do have any knowledge about another historical figure similar to Jesus who lived around his time,can please give any references , I would like to check some of this stuff out.

Well that's the main controversy over the evidence from the scrolls. Critics mention that Jesus was a relatively common name in that region at the time, and it COULD have been a different jesus that is mentioned in the scrolls.

But you have to figure what are the chances of there being a DIFFERENT Jesus who was ALSO described as being a person of influence AND crucified in that exact same time period?? Of course you can't prove 100% it was Jesus of Nazareth because we cant travel in time to take an iPhone video of it, but MOST mysteries in the world can't be proven 100%, so you have to eventually come to a compromise.

Think about any murder or crime. You're simply going on evidence that implies that a defendant committed the crime. But innocent people have been convicted of crimes for years. Innocent people have been EXECUTED for murder and then posthumously pardoned.

Just as with any crime documentary or conspiracy theory, the evidence and facts are there and its up to you to decide if they are true. I personally believe in Jesus and my religion, because I see the good it has caused and I draw correlations between the bible (what i remember) and the real world. I don't accuse any religion of being the cause for war and slaughter or being the greatest killer in history, because I have enough clarity to know that if religion never existed in any form, humanity would have found the next hundred different things to fight and war over. Examples? Uh..MONEY, POWER, LAND (which have all been at the center of conflict for thousands of years). So to accuse religion of being the cause for destruction is ridiculous. Like everything else in the world, tangible or not, it has been misused.

But if you do have any knowledge about another historical figure similar to Jesus who lived around his time,can please give any references , I would like to check some of this stuff out.

Well that's the main controversy over the evidence from the scrolls. Critics mention that Jesus was a relatively common name in that region at the time, and it COULD have been a different jesus that is mentioned in the scrolls.

But you have to figure what are the chances of there being a DIFFERENT Jesus who was ALSO described as being a person of influence AND crucified in that exact same time period?? Of course you can't prove 100% it was Jesus of Nazareth because we cant travel in time to take an iPhone video of it, but MOST mysteries in the world can't be proven 100%, so you have to eventually come to a compromise.

Think about any murder or crime. You're simply going on evidence that implies that a defendant committed the crime. But innocent people have been convicted of crimes for years. Innocent people have been EXECUTED for murder and then posthumously pardoned.

Just as with any crime documentary or conspiracy theory, the evidence and facts are there and its up to you to decide if they are true. I personally believe in Jesus and my religion, because I see the good it has caused and I draw correlations between the bible (what i remember) and the real world. I don't accuse any religion of being the cause for war and slaughter or being the greatest killer in history, because I have enough clarity to know that if religion never existed in any form, humanity would have found the next hundred different things to fight and war over. Examples? Uh..MONEY, POWER, LAND (which have all been at the center of conflict for thousands of years). So to accuse religion of being the cause for destruction is ridiculous. Like everything else in the world, tangible or not, it has been misused.

I agree with that to an extent.

But different religions have not caused so much bloodshed, as Christianity does, yes , religion like anything else can be used as an excuse to kill, but Christianity ,Judaism, and Islam when compared with Hinduism and Buddhism did not cause so much bloodshed and destruction.Many of its adherents did not kill in their religions name.

As far as the evidence well to me there is a difference in correlating and extrapolating.

The term Jesus Christ comes from the Greek Term ,''Christos'',which I believe means the anoited one.

There were people who did have the label of Christ during the time of Jesus because Christ was akin to the term Messiah in the Judaism realm.The Messiah meant the anointed one but it also meant the one to save the Jews from bondage.

But please do share if you have anything, I personally believe Jesus was an amalgamation of many Judaic figures during Christ's time.

AirportWorker1 wrote:Out of all the historians that lived during his supposedly existence,not one of them mentions him...and Josephus works was proven to have been tampered with for anyone that would like to bring him up.

He's just a another personification of the sun like many other godmen in different religions.No,not real.

Well I already said there were people from his time period or immediately after his death that spoke of him. Not everyone who has contributed to historic knowledge is a historian. Again for you to decide but to me it just seems if Jesus was NOT a religious figure, people would have no problem accepting that has evidence of his existence.

ViciousRidah wrote:
I agree with that to an extent.

But different religions have not caused so much bloodshed, as Christianity does, yes , religion like anything else can be used as an excuse to kill, but Christianity ,Judaism, and Islam when compared with Hinduism and Buddhism did not cause so much bloodshed and destruction.Many of its adherents did not kill in their religions name.

As far as the evidence well to me there is a difference in correlating and extrapolating.

The term Jesus Christ comes from the Greek Term ,''Christos'',which I believe means the anoited one.

There were people who did have the label of Christ during the time of Jesus because Christ was akin to the term Messiah in the Judaism realm.The Messiah meant the anointed one but it also meant the one to save the Jews from bondage.

But please do share if you have anything, I personally believe Jesus was an amalgamation of many Judaic figures during Christ's time.

No not all religions have been the driving force behind equal bloodshed, but most have been a factor in any kind of violence.

The biggest examples are the Crusades, where warriors were promised salvation for killing what they saw as heathens, and felt possession of the Holy Land was their divine right. The teachings of Christianity and belief in God were terribly misused in an effort to recruit more soldiers and generate wealth. But that form of Christianity is obviously driven by a fringe element of either violent zealots or out-right corrupt clergy members. It didn't represent the basis of Christianity, just like Al Qaeda and Jihad don't represent the basis of Islam.

If you want to boil it down to something like Christianity has been the source of MORE violence than Islam or Buddhism, there could probably be more factors outside of religion that contribute to that. Europe in general is a somewhat divided place even to this day and has always seen conflict, all the way back to the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, dark ages, and era of the Roman Empire. I'm not a sociology buff, but it seems like those origins (and the differing origins of each European country) contributed to the bloodlust of Europe at the time, as opposed to the isolated and perhaps slightly more racially and culturally homogenous regions like Asia/India etc.

However don't forget the Crusades were a reaction to the conquests of Islam. So Christianity hasn't always been the sole perpetrator.

MCD wrote:Well I already said there were people from his time period or immediately after his death that spoke of him. Not everyone who has contributed to historic knowledge is a historian. Again for you to decide but to me it just seems if Jesus was NOT a religious figure, people would have no problem accepting that has evidence of his existence.

Yeah,name the people? Anyone outside of biblical texts,please...

I like to think that extraordinary events would have been documented by competent historians.I mean,a man walking on water,feeding 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes,and Zombies coming out of their graves and walking around a city without a peep? I'm not buying it.

MCD wrote:Well I already said there were people from his time period or immediately after his death that spoke of him. Not everyone who has contributed to historic knowledge is a historian. Again for you to decide but to me it just seems if Jesus was NOT a religious figure, people would have no problem accepting that has evidence of his existence.

Yeah,name the people? Anyone outside of biblical texts,please...

I like to think that extraordinary events would have been documented by competent historians.I mean,a man walking on water,feeding 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes,and Zombies coming out of their graves and walking around a city without a peep? I'm not buying it.

Philo(20 BCE-50 be)

Plutarch(46 – 120 AD)

I already said Pope Clement if you read, and I mentioned the acknowledgement of a man named Jesus crucified in his time period. Also Jesus wasn't the origin of all religion, it existed prior to his birth and the established beliefs clashed heavily with Christianity, so it's not crazy to believe people of that era were not enthusiastic towards citing anything to do with the religion. Anyways, I'm not about to get in a google war with your ass ok. That mess has been done in countless places and achieved nothing, because in the end believers and atheists refuse to be open-minded or reasonable. So if you're looking for something like that go elsewhere. Or you can google "people who talked about jesus" and not ask me to seek the info out for you, sound good?

As far as your last point..Obviously the implication of magic or sorcery in the Bible or any religious text is too outlandish for people to believe. And the endless interpretations of religion in pop culture and media likely affect people's beliefs, especially when they take those individual depictions as actual examples from those religions.

For example if you were weren't a believer and never read the Bible, the dozens of movies you watch of fights between angels and demons and possessed humans might lead you to believe that Christians are really crazy enough to believe those things happen. Of course, no where on earth have you heard of anything like that, so you dismiss the religion as bogus.

Look I'm a believer and I KNOW that doesn't happen, it's an extravagant dramatization. I don't believe 2000 years ago people saw magic light emanating from every holy person or demons running around jumping into peoples brains. Rather it's the depiction drawn by people who lived in a far different society than us. The allegorical intentions of the bible are also up for debate, and are more chaotic due to the fact the bible has likely been modified to some extent over the years.

There are even issues with certain trends held by Christians and catholics themselves. I watched George Carlin alot before he died, and I remember during one of his last stand ups he addressed certain issues in Christianity (if you didn't know Carlin was an atheist). The one that stands out is his stance on the ability to see living people from Heaven and the absurdity with such a belief. And he was right! It's my understanding that the Bible makes no mention of such a thing. It was something birthed out of Hallmark cards and pop culture, and provided exactly what Carlin said, comfort and poetry for funerals. This kind of stuff that is circulated and presented as part of the religion is one reason some people have difficulty believing.

Anyways my whole intent is to bring another perspective to this argument without starting a bash fest. Rather than look at the bible as a fantasy story of magic, sorcery and rainbows, you can look it as something truly relevant to all times.

AirportWorker wrote:I like to think that extraordinary events would have been documented by competent historians.I mean,a man walking on water,feeding 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes,and Zombies coming out of their graves and walking around a city without a peep? I'm not buying it.

Philo(20 BCE-50 be)

Plutarch(46 – 120 AD)

MCD wrote:I already said Pope Clement if you read, and I mentioned the acknowledgement of a man named Jesus crucified in his time period. Also Jesus wasn't the origin of all religion, it existed prior to his birth and the established beliefs clashed heavily with Christianity, so it's not crazy to believe people of that era were not enthusiastic towards citing anything to do with the religion. Anyways, I'm not about to get in a google war with your ass ok. That mess has been done in countless places and achieved nothing, because in the end believers and atheists refuse to be open-minded or reasonable. So if you're looking for something like that go elsewhere. Or you can google "people who talked about jesus" and not ask me to seek the info out for you, sound good?

But Pope Clement was born like a hundred years after the alleged Jesus Christ right?

MCD wrote:Anyways my whole intent is to bring another perspective to this argument without starting a bash fest. Rather than look at the bible as a fantasy story of magic, sorcery and rainbows, you can look it as something truly relevant to all times.

I'd rather look at the source like the Book Of Enoch for something relevant,thanks.

MCD wrote:Rather than look at the bible as a fantasy story of magic, sorcery and rainbows, you can look it as something truly relevant to all times.

Instead of looking at the bible as a fantasy story of magic, sorcery and rainbows you can look at the Egyptian Book of the dead and The Epic Of Gilgamesh as something truly relevant to all times.

What an excellent way to take my point out of context while disregarding the rest of my comment. Congratulations on your ignorance "femun." Your statement is worthless.

AirportWorker1 wrote:
But Pope Clement was born like a hundred years after the alleged Jesus Christ right?

Technically he was born less than 100 years after Jesus, since he was one of the first appointed Pope and ended his papacy near the beginning of the 2nd century (AD). Clement and these other initial overseers of the church had contact with the original 12 disciples, meaning they lived during the same time. Even if Pope Clement WAS born post ~130 AD, I made the point that it's plausible that the subsequent generations would be informed of an influential figure who stirred as much controversy or garnered as much scrutiny as Jesus did. Just like how I've heard about Billy the Kid, Robert E Lee or Charlie Luciano, despite the fact I was born in 1989 and these people all died before 1900. Yeah I know it's so hard to believe.

I don't doubt there's other historical references or figures that allude to or speak directly of Jesus. But I think it's worth it for people to consider the background of the time. Jesus was not a king or ruler the way we perceive; as one who governs over a nation and is part of a royal bloodline. He was actually a laborer and a perceived blasphemer condemned to crucifixion. Despite his claim as being the Son of God, I think you'd be hard pressed to find detailed information about most peasants or laborers or accused criminals from 2000 years ago. Appointed rulers, however, ensure their legacy is enshrined in every single one of the monuments they build for themselves or piece of currency stamped during their reign. But his story obviously enlightened enough people to secure his legacy in the Bible.

MCD wrote:Rather than look at the bible as a fantasy story of magic, sorcery and rainbows, you can look it as something truly relevant to all times.

Instead of looking at the bible as a fantasy story of magic, sorcery and rainbows you can look at the Egyptian Book of the dead and The Epic Of Gilgamesh as something truly relevant to all times.

What an excellent way to take my point out of context while disregarding the rest of my comment. Congratulations on your ignorance "femun." Your statement is worthless.

Your just mad because I flipped your BS on you. ROFL!!!! Thanks for the laugh you made my night.

Femun, you're not even worth addressing anymore if you think you 'FLIPPED YOUR BS ON YOU ROFFLLL!!!!" Go back to school. Your statement is entirely fallacious. The flawed logic you employ to fabricate your ridiculous argument I quoted is the only comedy here. Though your childish, Jr. high retort was entertaining as well. I bet you're a force to be reckoned with on youtube comment pages.

On the upside, thanks for successfully removing yourself from the conversation by showing your lack of maturity. You're on a roll kid.

For a country as religous as the United States of America he sure hasnt put alot of faith in you guys.....

Yeah, thats the question, does Jesus believe in you? All this debate over a figure that is recognized in every country on the planet and by every major religion in the world, and we are questioning his existence? its a bit ridiculous.

For a country as religous as the United States of America he sure hasnt put alot of faith in you guys.....

Yeah, thats the question, does Jesus believe in you? All this debate over a figure that is recognized in every country on the planet and by every major religion in the world, and we are questioning his existence? its a bit ridiculous.

Your post is rediculous. I think you chime in from time to time just to stir the pot.

no Jesus christ is mot his proper name and isnt even in the original 1611 king james bible, his name is yahshua Ben Yosef the messiah, The name Jesus is some made up name to keep the masses from knowing and acknowledging his true name, Yahshua!

noname20 wrote:no Jesus christ is mot his proper name and isnt even in the original 1611 king james bible, his name is yahshua Ben Yosef the messiah, The name Jesus is some made up name to keep the masses from knowing and acknowledging his true name, Yahshua!

But He's NOT Yosef's son. He's Eloah's/Elohim's Only Begotten Son. God the Son.

Yes, I believe in Jesus Christ. I didn't believe in Him growing up in South Central but as I gotten older and I was strung out on that damn crack. I was 19 when I physically stopped banging, I had left LA for a better life but wherever you go in life you got to take yourself with you lol. I moved to San Diego, then back to LA running from me lol. Yes, I laugh a lot now. Then I made a move to Texas after meeting a man in the US Marines. The first time I had fallen in love with someone after Lil Country died. This was 1975. I thought since he hadn't been where I been he could save me. (damn I was ignorant) Let's just skip all the middle cause I don't want to bore you all too too much lol. I was a LA girl strung out in Texas on Shermm, Crack, Pills and alcohol and that doped worked my ass until I was 33 when I got clean. I begin to experience somethings in my life no one knew anything about and I believe it was God working through me. I was a Manuel Arts High drop out and by 1997 I had 2 certificates from college. I never thought about going back to anyone's school. I started a girls club and it lasted 7 years and people blessed them young ladies. I ended up buying a car with no money by getting a job as a substute teacher (I couldn't believe it), buying a home, peace coming into my life by helping people which I didn't want to help anybody. Visiting churches until I found a home church and some ladies took hold of me and begin to guide me and talk to me and to ask me to maybe think about things from a few different view. Just like I banged hard when I was Brimming, I do that for the Real Blood and that's Jesus.